Filed: Dec. 01, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 01, 2016
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BENJAMIN H. SETTLE , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC's ("Swift") motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 203). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby grants the motion for the reasons stated herein. I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY On September 15, 2016, Plaintiffs Eric Dublinski, Richard Erickson,
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BENJAMIN H. SETTLE , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC's ("Swift") motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 203). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby grants the motion for the reasons stated herein. I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY On September 15, 2016, Plaintiffs Eric Dublinski, Richard Erickson, ..
More
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC's ("Swift") motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 203). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby grants the motion for the reasons stated herein.
I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
On September 15, 2016, Plaintiffs Eric Dublinski, Richard Erickson, Sean P. Forney, Jacob Grismer, Timothy Helmick, Henry M. Ledesma, Scott Praye, Gary H. Roberts, Troy Slack, Dennis Stuber, and Robert P. Ulrich ("Plaintiffs") filed a motion to compel requesting that the Court either order Swift to produce certain documents withheld and identified on Swift's privilege log or conduct an in camera review of the documents. Dkt. 190. Plaintiffs identified two categories of documents, which are pay analysis documents and communications regarding overtime. Id. at 10-15. On November 15, 2016, the Court granted the motion and ordered Swift to produce the pay analysis documents and submit the remainder of the documents for in camera review. Dkt. 201. On November 17, 2016, Swift filed a motion for partial reconsideration requesting that all documents be submitted for in camera review. Dkt. 203.
II. DISCUSSION
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will usually not be granted without allowing the opposing party an opportunity to respond. Local Rules, W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1)-(2). In this case, the Court finds that a response is not required because granting the motion is in the interest of all parties. The Court has concluded that the pay analysis documents should be produced and, absent some extraordinary turn of events or discovery of some fact that the Court is currently unaware of, the Court will order production of the documents in due course. Thus, no party is prejudiced by Swift submitting the documents to the Court.
III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Swift's motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 203) is GRANTED. Swift shall submit the documents for in camera review as soon as practicable.
